Peter Hitchens: "If you do not worship God, you end up worshipping power, whether it is Kim Jong Il, Leon Trotsky or the military might of George W. Bush. In which case, God help you."
...uh, Petey, (may I call you Petey?) this is what we call a false choice.
Plenty of people worship neither God nor power. Anyway, the real worry are people who worship both God AND power. People like George W. himself (not to mention crusaders, papists, and Jihadists.) Where power and religious fanaticism coincide the result is always ugly.
[Via XGH]
Monday, June 04, 2007
Shafron is silly
Taken from here
Rabbi Avi ‘I have overwhelming proof that Judaism is true’ Shafran is at it again, bashing the skeptics and praising the believers. In this article he goes after Hitchens for attacking Falwell.
Now, its definitely true that Hitchens likes to use nasty rhetoric. No argument there. And Hitchens was particularly nasty about Falwell. I’m not even going to get into the discussion of whether Falwell was good for the Jews or not (not). But Shafran then goes and makes the same bogus point he has made multiple times in the past. He writes:
While religion can, and often is, misused, there is much to be said for a society pledged, however imperfectly, to the Divine, over one that regards human beings as nothing more than quickened carcasses.
Really? What about Islamic Jihad? Is there much to be said for them too? Would we rather have a bunch of Islamic Jihadists living down the street, with their ‘imperfect pledges’ to the Divine? Or would we rather have a bunch of skeptical atheists?
Sometimes I think that Cross Currents, in their zeal to defend the Christian Far Right, completely lose touch of reality. Belief in the Divine has been the signature call of almost all of our persecutors for the last 2,000 years. (DB: almost?) The Romans believed in multiple Gods, the Christians believed in God, and Moslems have a very definite concept of the one true God. (DB: And Hitler's willing executioners were themselves believing Christians, or the product of strict Christian upbringings)
Why on earth is Shafran under the delusion that belief in God is helpful? True, Hitler was maybe an agnostic, (DB: Hitler was a baptized Catholic and a former alter boy, who tapped into centuries of Catholic anti-Semitism, and used the rhetoric of Catholic anti-Semites and their techniques of persecution, including the ghetto and the yellow star) but the Nazis drewheavily almost entirely on centuries of European Christian Anti-Semitism to achieve their evil goals.
Rabbi Avi ‘I have overwhelming proof that Judaism is true’ Shafran is at it again, bashing the skeptics and praising the believers. In this article he goes after Hitchens for attacking Falwell.
Now, its definitely true that Hitchens likes to use nasty rhetoric. No argument there. And Hitchens was particularly nasty about Falwell. I’m not even going to get into the discussion of whether Falwell was good for the Jews or not (not). But Shafran then goes and makes the same bogus point he has made multiple times in the past. He writes:
While religion can, and often is, misused, there is much to be said for a society pledged, however imperfectly, to the Divine, over one that regards human beings as nothing more than quickened carcasses.
Really? What about Islamic Jihad? Is there much to be said for them too? Would we rather have a bunch of Islamic Jihadists living down the street, with their ‘imperfect pledges’ to the Divine? Or would we rather have a bunch of skeptical atheists?
Sometimes I think that Cross Currents, in their zeal to defend the Christian Far Right, completely lose touch of reality. Belief in the Divine has been the signature call of almost all of our persecutors for the last 2,000 years. (DB: almost?) The Romans believed in multiple Gods, the Christians believed in God, and Moslems have a very definite concept of the one true God. (DB: And Hitler's willing executioners were themselves believing Christians, or the product of strict Christian upbringings)
Why on earth is Shafran under the delusion that belief in God is helpful? True, Hitler was maybe an agnostic, (DB: Hitler was a baptized Catholic and a former alter boy, who tapped into centuries of Catholic anti-Semitism, and used the rhetoric of Catholic anti-Semites and their techniques of persecution, including the ghetto and the yellow star) but the Nazis drew
(DB:Safran also speaks about atheist/communist killing fields, nd suggest that religionand disbelief lead equally to murder. When he does this he is comparing two things that are not alike. Like the Catholics of yesteryear, our Jihadists kill in the name of their religion. No one has ever been thrown in a ghetto or a pit of corpses for the greater glory of atheisim.)
The bottom line is that some societies are evil (from our POV), and some are good, and it doesn’t seem to make much difference whether they believe in God or not. If anything, more of our persecutors have been God believers than not. Cross-Currents
Sunday, June 03, 2007
Talking Torah with the Baby Bears
Heard around the family dinner table this weekend:
Kid: ... so Moshe married a really beautiful woman.
DB: Wait. Is that what the posuk (verse) says?
Kid: I dunno
DB: Let's check (Gets book. Flips pages.) Okay, it doesn't say "beautiful woman." It says he married a Cushite.
Kid: Right, Cushite means black. People from Cush are black. It means Moshe married someone who was so beautiful it was like she was black.
DB: So why didn't the Torah just say she was beautiful? Wouldn't that have been simpler? If she was pretty why doesn't it just say that she was beautiful? When I want to tell Ima that she's pretty, do I say that she's pretty, or do I say that she's black?
Kid: Hmmmm. Maybe Moshe's wife was from Cush?
DB: No, it says elswehere that Moshe married a woman from Midian.
Kid: I know! Maybe Moshe married a SECOND wife, and she was from Cush, and black...
DB: Okay
Kid: ...and the sin that Miriam did was that she was being racist?
DB: (bursting with pride) Could be. Could be.
Kid: ... so Moshe married a really beautiful woman.
DB: Wait. Is that what the posuk (verse) says?
Kid: I dunno
DB: Let's check (Gets book. Flips pages.) Okay, it doesn't say "beautiful woman." It says he married a Cushite.
Kid: Right, Cushite means black. People from Cush are black. It means Moshe married someone who was so beautiful it was like she was black.
DB: So why didn't the Torah just say she was beautiful? Wouldn't that have been simpler? If she was pretty why doesn't it just say that she was beautiful? When I want to tell Ima that she's pretty, do I say that she's pretty, or do I say that she's black?
Kid: Hmmmm. Maybe Moshe's wife was from Cush?
DB: No, it says elswehere that Moshe married a woman from Midian.
Kid: I know! Maybe Moshe married a SECOND wife, and she was from Cush, and black...
DB: Okay
Kid: ...and the sin that Miriam did was that she was being racist?
DB: (bursting with pride) Could be. Could be.
Friday, June 01, 2007
Cross-Currents Correction
Avi Shafran » Man or Beast: "Reverend Falwell, by contrast, made his reputation by forcing the American body politic to consider that the human sphere, by virtue of a Divine plan, is uniquely, meaningfully different from all else on earth.
Here, honey, let me fix your typo:
Reverend Falwell, by contrast, made his reputation by forcing the American body politic to consider that the WHITE human sphere, by virtue of a Divine plan, is uniquely, meaningfully different from all else on earth.
Here's the money quote, from 1958, when Fat Jerry was just starting his career in political activism:
Here, honey, let me fix your typo:
Reverend Falwell, by contrast, made his reputation by forcing the American body politic to consider that the WHITE human sphere, by virtue of a Divine plan, is uniquely, meaningfully different from all else on earth.
Here's the money quote, from 1958, when Fat Jerry was just starting his career in political activism:
"If Chief Justice Warren and his associates had known God's word and had desired to do the Lord's will, I am quite confident that the 1954 decision would never have been made. The facilities should be separate. When God has drawn a line of distinction, we should not attempt to cross that line."The fact that Falwell made his bones as a Godly segregationist and race baiter is glaringly omitted from Avi's obituary, as it was also omitted from the valentine composed in his honor by the right rebbetzin Toby Katz. Instead Katz and Shafran prefer to focus on "values," as if Falwell's nasty war on homosexuality - itself, just a transmuting of the preacher's nasty war on integration - was something worthy and deserving of respect.
Thursday, May 31, 2007
Steg at the trial
Earlier this month, some Rabbis were arested for protesting outside the UN.
Steg live blogs what he calls the arraignments:
http://boroparkpyro.blogspot.com/2007/05/mass-rabbinic-acd.html
http://boroparkpyro.blogspot.com/2007/05/mass-rabbinic-impact.html
Steg live blogs what he calls the arraignments:
http://boroparkpyro.blogspot.com/2007/05/mass-rabbinic-acd.html
http://boroparkpyro.blogspot.com/2007/05/mass-rabbinic-impact.html
Wednesday, May 30, 2007
Ask The Rabbi
by CousinOliver
I don't know why people are sending their questions to me. I have no answers. Here is what came to my email box recently.
Dear Rabbi,
On shabbos, I don't wash myself including my hands, and face due to the prohibition of using hot water, soap, and a towel. I also eat with my hands because I don't want to be oyver the possible use of kaylim that are muktzah. This week we had some guests over and when it came time during the havdalah post shabbos, my guests did not let me rub my wine dipped hands on thier heads, eyes, temples, ears, and cheeks, nor did they let me stick my yayin covered pinkies in their pockets. I don't want them to be left behind while my spirit sky rockets to unprecidented hieghts. What can I do to be sure they get the wine rubbed on their faces as moshe did while recieving the luchote?
I don't know why people are sending their questions to me. I have no answers. Here is what came to my email box recently.
Dear Rabbi,
On shabbos, I don't wash myself including my hands, and face due to the prohibition of using hot water, soap, and a towel. I also eat with my hands because I don't want to be oyver the possible use of kaylim that are muktzah. This week we had some guests over and when it came time during the havdalah post shabbos, my guests did not let me rub my wine dipped hands on thier heads, eyes, temples, ears, and cheeks, nor did they let me stick my yayin covered pinkies in their pockets. I don't want them to be left behind while my spirit sky rockets to unprecidented hieghts. What can I do to be sure they get the wine rubbed on their faces as moshe did while recieving the luchote?
Klobbering Kobre
As part of his torah-true efforts to discredit Barak Obama Eytan Kobre tells us how important experience is:
Anyway, Kobre continues:
(1) A constitution with checks and balances.
(2) A 200-year tradition of democracy
(3) A stable economy
(4) A tradition of secularism
(5) No tradition of pogroms, or Jew baiting.
(6) The religious parties are weak (despite the best efforts of people like Kobre to undermine that)
(7) In particular, the Catholic Church is weak
(8) Aside from being weak, the Catholic Church no longer sponsors Jew-hatred.
(9) And if they did, most Americans would object (see 4 + 5 + 7)
That said, I concede it could happen here, but before it did, America would have to change dramatically. Possible? Of course. Anything is possible. But it couldn't happen overnight.
Rather, it is the sheer irrationality that a large segment of the American public is demonstrating in catapulting Mr. Obama, a virtual political greenhorn, to second most popular choice for the world’s most powerful position, and in a historical period of unprecedented uncertainty and looming dangers.Ho ho ho. I, for one, am shepping extreme nachus from this. Sure, it took Kobre and the rest of the GOP drones nearly 8 years to come around to the key argument against George W. Bush's original candidacy, but better late then never. Set your watches. If the pattern holds, Kobre and co., will be telling us sometime in 2012 why the Swiftboater-style of political advertisment is vile.
Again, it’s the combination of factors that make the sudden exaltation of Barack as political rock star so clearly emotion-, not reason-based. He may well be very bright, articulate and capable, but managing the Harvard Law Review and a few years in a state legislature followed by two in the U.S. Senate do not the leader of the Free World make.
Anyway, Kobre continues:
Sure, we all know it can’t happen here, don’t we? America is so very different from 1930s Weimar Germany in so many ways and Western society as a whole doesn’t exhibit the conditions necessary for an entire nation to go murderously berserk while the rest of the “community of nations” stands by, right? Right? Reassure me, now.Uh, okay. What follows is a short list of the many ways in which the USA is nothing like Weimar Germany:
(1) A constitution with checks and balances.
(2) A 200-year tradition of democracy
(3) A stable economy
(4) A tradition of secularism
(5) No tradition of pogroms, or Jew baiting.
(6) The religious parties are weak (despite the best efforts of people like Kobre to undermine that)
(7) In particular, the Catholic Church is weak
(8) Aside from being weak, the Catholic Church no longer sponsors Jew-hatred.
(9) And if they did, most Americans would object (see 4 + 5 + 7)
That said, I concede it could happen here, but before it did, America would have to change dramatically. Possible? Of course. Anything is possible. But it couldn't happen overnight.
A Wednesday Sermon
Say, you’re a believing Christian of the twentieth century and you’re transported by time machine back into ancient Rome. You’re walking around the main squares and it’s all pretty impressive. Big marble cathedrals with columns. Huge statutes all over the place, and folks crowding into the temples, genuflecting and bringing offerings. Plenty of priests and acolytes in fancy dress, the whole society rests on this spectacular stuff.
And then you ask what’s behind it, what’s it all about. You sit down with a couple of these ancient Romans and they start telling you it’s Jupiter, the god who lives up in the sky and runs the world. And you think, Jupiter? Jupiter? What’s Jupiter? There isn’t any Jupiter, it’s all imagination, it’s all some made-up idea.
You know damn well that this sacred Jupiter that everyone’s so devoted to, that everyone’s dependent on, that everyone praises and carries on about, and writes epics and treatises and holy books about, and mutters prayers to . . . you know damn well that their Jupiter is air, their Jupiter is a phantom, there isn’t any Jupiter, no Jupiter of any kind, the whole religion’s a sham and a fake and a delusion, no matter how many poets and intellectuals adhere to it, no matter how many thrills and epiphanies people get out of it.
Then you come back to the twentieth century, and what you’ve seen and understood doesn’t mean a thing, you’re blind as a bat, you figure you’ve got the goods on Jupiter but Jesus is different, Jesus is for real, Jupiter is a vast communal lie but Jesus is a vast transcendent truth . . .
That, my freinds, is the very great Cynthia Ozik in Heir to the Glimmering World It came to my mind because yet another of my friendly neighborhood GOP-Jews tried to win me over to his cause by praising the president's religion. His case went something like this: "Bush is a believing Christian; you're a believing Jew. Therefore, you're on the same side."
As I hope Ozik makes clear, this all-too-common argument is rediculous. All beliefs are not created equal. A believing Christian believes in air. He worships smoke. A shadow. A fleeting dream.
Now its true that some of his values coincide with Jewish values, but so what? There are values on the left which also coincide with our own. The mere fact that the president is a Christian seems no more convincing a case for Jewish support, than does the fact that there are atheists on the left. The atheist believes in nothing, but by our lights, the president does, too.
And then you ask what’s behind it, what’s it all about. You sit down with a couple of these ancient Romans and they start telling you it’s Jupiter, the god who lives up in the sky and runs the world. And you think, Jupiter? Jupiter? What’s Jupiter? There isn’t any Jupiter, it’s all imagination, it’s all some made-up idea.
You know damn well that this sacred Jupiter that everyone’s so devoted to, that everyone’s dependent on, that everyone praises and carries on about, and writes epics and treatises and holy books about, and mutters prayers to . . . you know damn well that their Jupiter is air, their Jupiter is a phantom, there isn’t any Jupiter, no Jupiter of any kind, the whole religion’s a sham and a fake and a delusion, no matter how many poets and intellectuals adhere to it, no matter how many thrills and epiphanies people get out of it.
Then you come back to the twentieth century, and what you’ve seen and understood doesn’t mean a thing, you’re blind as a bat, you figure you’ve got the goods on Jupiter but Jesus is different, Jesus is for real, Jupiter is a vast communal lie but Jesus is a vast transcendent truth . . .
That, my freinds, is the very great Cynthia Ozik in Heir to the Glimmering World It came to my mind because yet another of my friendly neighborhood GOP-Jews tried to win me over to his cause by praising the president's religion. His case went something like this: "Bush is a believing Christian; you're a believing Jew. Therefore, you're on the same side."
As I hope Ozik makes clear, this all-too-common argument is rediculous. All beliefs are not created equal. A believing Christian believes in air. He worships smoke. A shadow. A fleeting dream.
Now its true that some of his values coincide with Jewish values, but so what? There are values on the left which also coincide with our own. The mere fact that the president is a Christian seems no more convincing a case for Jewish support, than does the fact that there are atheists on the left. The atheist believes in nothing, but by our lights, the president does, too.
More mail from Ohr Somayach
Dear Rabbi,
Recently, I started wearing white knee socks, in the tradition of our ancestors dating back to Moshe. Unfortunately, the socks don't stay up. They tend to bunch around my ankles making me look like a seminary girl, instead of the macho hasidic he-man that I am. Is there something I should be doing differently to make them stay up? I thought of shaving my legs, but wasn't sure if that was allowed for a man. Please advise.
The answer:
A man shouldn't shave his legs. Rather, if you want your white knee socks to stay up, use a pin. For the proper method to do this, we asked a Rabbi who wears white socks. He wrote us the following: "Get a safety pin from your wife's drawer. Use it to attach your knee socks to the inside of your pants. If this fails, consider buying tights. You should be able to find something that will work for a man at a Plus-Sized store." Congratulations on your growth in narishkeit. May you go from strength to strength.
[Source]
Recently, I started wearing white knee socks, in the tradition of our ancestors dating back to Moshe. Unfortunately, the socks don't stay up. They tend to bunch around my ankles making me look like a seminary girl, instead of the macho hasidic he-man that I am. Is there something I should be doing differently to make them stay up? I thought of shaving my legs, but wasn't sure if that was allowed for a man. Please advise.
The answer:
A man shouldn't shave his legs. Rather, if you want your white knee socks to stay up, use a pin. For the proper method to do this, we asked a Rabbi who wears white socks. He wrote us the following: "Get a safety pin from your wife's drawer. Use it to attach your knee socks to the inside of your pants. If this fails, consider buying tights. You should be able to find something that will work for a man at a Plus-Sized store." Congratulations on your growth in narishkeit. May you go from strength to strength.
[Source]
More unorthodox exegisis
You want to see foreign languages being used for holy purposes, go to BT MK 28a, by which I mean, of course, Mo'ed Katan daf chaf chet amud aleph. I can't point you to the place on the page because I don't have the printed sha"s in front of me, but the words you're looking for (sorry, you need Hebrew) begin תנו רבנן: מת פתאום זו היא מיתה חטופה.
What you'll see is our old friend, Rabbi Yishmoel, once again attempting to win a Talmudic argument by relying on a Greek homonym. It's the same homonym he used on BT Sanh 76b; again he says that we can learn Torah lessons from the fact that the Hebrew word הן sounds like the Greek word for "one."
This, you understand, is rather like saying that Torah lessons can be learned from the fact that the Hebrew for fish corresponds with the English word "dog." Would any of you try that? Perhaps Rabbi Yishmoel would approve...
What you'll see is our old friend, Rabbi Yishmoel, once again attempting to win a Talmudic argument by relying on a Greek homonym. It's the same homonym he used on BT Sanh 76b; again he says that we can learn Torah lessons from the fact that the Hebrew word הן sounds like the Greek word for "one."
This, you understand, is rather like saying that Torah lessons can be learned from the fact that the Hebrew for fish corresponds with the English word "dog." Would any of you try that? Perhaps Rabbi Yishmoel would approve...
Tuesday, May 29, 2007
Supporting MOChassid
Some nasty commenters were mean to MOChassid, who was right for a change. Go tell him he was (a) right and (b) should continue blogging as he sees fit.
(Actually, I think the only time MoC's ever been really, really wrong is the time he disagreed with me about this. And for those of you (cough Ed cough) who think I suck up to RenReb as a way of thanking her for sucking up to me, which, of course, is her way of showing appreciation for all the sucking up I do in response to her sucking up, see this golden oldie on the same inyan.)
(Actually, I think the only time MoC's ever been really, really wrong is the time he disagreed with me about this. And for those of you (cough Ed cough) who think I suck up to RenReb as a way of thanking her for sucking up to me, which, of course, is her way of showing appreciation for all the sucking up I do in response to her sucking up, see this golden oldie on the same inyan.)
BBC and the Balen report
By email, Lurker suggests the BBC's efforts to prevent publication of the Balen Report is indicative of the network's anti-Israel bias.
Not necessarily. And here's why:
(1) No one knows what the Balen Report contains. It might say that the BBC did a smash up job reporting on Israel. Or not. No one knows. (I expect the report was critical of the BBC, but not having seen it, who knows?)
(2) The BBC itself commissioned the Balen Report. This tells us that the BBC wanted to identify and correct problems with their Israel reporting. (I think that the BBC deserves thanks and applause for attempting to diagnose and cure a problem - even if the work isn't yet done.)
(3) The BBC might have legitimate businesses reasons for blocking publication of the report. If problems were identified, by the Reportm and subsequently fixed, the BBC might now wish to avoid answering complaints about old, already-addressed issues. Or perhaps, the BBC simply wishes to avoid establishing the precedent of publishing internal reviews and reports. (I don't know British law or custom, but I can't imagine a US company would ever accept being forced to publish a report prepared by an employee or consultant.)
Not necessarily. And here's why:
(1) No one knows what the Balen Report contains. It might say that the BBC did a smash up job reporting on Israel. Or not. No one knows. (I expect the report was critical of the BBC, but not having seen it, who knows?)
(2) The BBC itself commissioned the Balen Report. This tells us that the BBC wanted to identify and correct problems with their Israel reporting. (I think that the BBC deserves thanks and applause for attempting to diagnose and cure a problem - even if the work isn't yet done.)
(3) The BBC might have legitimate businesses reasons for blocking publication of the report. If problems were identified, by the Reportm and subsequently fixed, the BBC might now wish to avoid answering complaints about old, already-addressed issues. Or perhaps, the BBC simply wishes to avoid establishing the precedent of publishing internal reviews and reports. (I don't know British law or custom, but I can't imagine a US company would ever accept being forced to publish a report prepared by an employee or consultant.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)